Efforts to Whitewash Opportunism

Published:Published inSbornik Sotsial-DemokrataNo. 2, December 1916.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to theSborniktext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages167-170.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

TheParisNashe
Slovo,[1]recently suppressed by the French Government to oblige
tsarism (the excuse being that copies of NasheSlovowere found on
the Russian soldiers who had mutinied in Marseilles!), was indignant over
the “lamentable” role of Deputy Chkheidze. With the permission of the
authorities, Chkheidze addressed public meetings in the Caucasus, appealing
to the population not to create “disorder” (accompanied by looting of
shops, etc.), but to organise co-operative societies, etc. A nice trip for
anallegedSocial-Democrat to make “under the protection of a
govern or, a colonel, a priest and a police captain” (Nashe SlovoNo.203).

L.Martovforthwith hastened to enter a noble protest in the Bund’sBulletinagainst “representing Chkheidze as a sort of [?? not “a
sort of”, but “the same sort as all the
liquidators”[2]] extinguisher of the awakening revolutionary
spirit”. Martov’s defence of Chkheidze proceeds along two lines: fact and
principle.

Hechallenges the fact by declaring thatNashe Slovoquotes
from a Caucasian Black-Hundred paper, and that those who spoke at the
meeting with Chkheidze were Mikoladze, a retired officer “known in his
uyezd as a radical public personality”, and the priest Khundadze, who “in
1905 was prosecuted for participating in the Social-Democratic
movement”. (“It is well known,” adds Martov, “that participation of
village priests in the Georgian Social-Democratic movement is quite
common.”)

Suchis Martov’s “defence” of Chkheidze. And it is a very feeble
defence. Even if Chkheidze’s appearance on the same platform with a priest
was reported by a Black-Hundredpaper it does not refute thefact, and Martov himself admits that
the fact did occur.

ThatKhundadze “was prosecuted in 1905” proves absolutely nothing,
for Gapon and Alexinsky were also “prosecuted” at that time. What party
do Khundadze and Mikoladze be long to, or sympathise with,now?
Are theydefencists? That is what Martov ought to have ascertained
if he were seeking the truth and not doing a cheap lawyer’s job. In our
press, a man “known in his uyezd as a radical public personality”
ordinarily means simply a liberal landowner.

Byshouting thatNashe Slovohas presented an “entirely false
picture”, Martov wishes to conceal thetruth, which he has not
refuted one iota.

Butthat is not the main thing. We have only the blossoms, the fruit is
to come. Having failed to disprove Chkheidze’s “lamentable” conduct by
denying the fact, Martovconfirmsit by his defence of theprinciple.

“Itremains beyond doubt,” says Martov, “that Comrade [??  of
Potresov and Co.?] Chkheidze found it necessary to speak out not only
against the reactionary direction taken by the Caucasian disorders insofar
as it fell [? they fell?] under the influence of the Black Hundreds, but
also against those of its destructive forms (looting of shops, violence
against merchants) which, generally speaking, popular discontent may assume
even regardless of reactionary influences.” Note the words: “It remains
beyond doubt”!

Martovsings like a nightingale; V. Maklakov could do no better: the
helplessness, disunity, “consternation and even ignorance” of the
masses... “‘revolts’ of this kind is not the path that leads to
the goal, and in the final analysis are harmful from the standpoint of
proletarian interests....” On the one hand, “it would be a bad
revolutionary party that turned its back upon an incipient movement because
it was accompanied by spontaneous and inexpedient excesses.” On the other
hand, “it would be a bad party that considered it its revolutionary duty
to refrain from combating such excesses as inexpedient
actions”.... “Inasmuch as in Russia... an organised campaign of struggle
against the war has not yet begun [?], inasmuch as the scattered state of
the class-conscious elements of the proletariat makes it impossible to
compare our present position, not only with1904–05, but even with 1914–15 [?], the popular unrest which flares up as
a consequence of the high cost of living, etc., although a very importantsymptom, cannot [?]directly[?] become the source of
that movement for which we are striving. The only way in which it may be
‘utilised’ expediently is by guiding the discontent that breaks out into
the channels of some kind of organised struggle, without which there can be
no question of the masses setting themselves revolutionary aims. For this
reason, even [!!]  appeals to organise co-operative societies, to compel
municipal councils to fix prices, and for similar palliatives based on the
development of the initiative of the masses, are more revolutionary [ha!
ha!] and more fruitful than flirting.... Frivolous speculation is
‘positively criminal’,” etc.

Itis difficult to keep calm when reading outrageous speeches like
these. Even the Bundist editors appear to have realised that Martov was
behaving dishonestly, and added an ambiguous promise to “return to the
subject in a future issue”....

Thequestion is as clear as clear can be. Let us assume that Chkheidze
had to deal with a form of unrest which he considered
inexpedient. Obviously it was his right and duty as a revolutionary to
combat theinexpedientform—for the sake of what? For the sake
of expedientrevolutionaryactions? Or for the sake of an
expedientliberalstruggle?

Thatis the whole point! And this is what Martov muddles up!

Mr.Chkheidzewas “guiding” the rising revolutionary “mass
discontent” “into the channel” of aliberalstruggle
(only peaceful co-operative societies, only legal pressure on the municipal
councils, with the approval of the Govern or, etc.), and not into the
channel of an expedientrevolutionarystruggle. This is the crux
of the question; but Martov goes on spouting in defence of a liberal
policy.

Arevolutionary Social-Democrat would say:“It is inexpedient to loot small shops. Let us organise
a more impressive demonstration, simultaneously, say, with the Baku, Tiflis
and Petrograd workers. Let us direct our hatred against the government; let
us win over the part of the army that wants peace. Isthiswhat
Mr. Chkheidze said? No. He called for a “struggle”acceptable to the
liberals!

Martovsigned a “platform” recommending “revolutionary mass
actions”[3]—one has to show oneself a revolutionary before the
workers!—but when the first symptoms of such actions appear in Russia, he
begins, by fair means or foul, to defend the “Left”-liberalChkheidze.

“InRussia an organised campaign of struggle against the war has not
yet begun....”  In the first place, this is not true. It has begun, at any
rate, in Petrograd, with manifestos, meetings, strikes,
demonstrations. Secondly, if it has not begun in some other parts of the
country,it must be begun. But Martov claims that the liberal
campaign “begun” by Mr. Chkheidze is “more revolutionary”.

Whatis this, if not whitewashing abominable opportunism?

[1]SeeNote No. 31

[2]Liquidators—exponents of an opportunist trend that spread among
the Menshevik Social-Democrats after the defeat of the 1905–07 Revolution.

Theliquidators demanded the dissolution of the illegal revolutionary
working-class party. They urged the workers to abandon the revolutionary
struggle against tsarism and intended to establish a broad opportunist
party, which would renounce revolutionary slogansand engage only in the legal activity permitted by the tsarist
government. Lenin and other Bolsheviks ceaselessly exposed this betrayal of
the revolution by the liquidators. The policy of the liquidators was not
supported by the workers. The Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (January
1912) expelled them from the Party.

[3]Referenceis to the draft platform which the Menshevik Organising Committee
Secretariat Abroad issued in Zurich in 1915 and circulated to organisations
affiliated to the August bloc. It was in the form of a letter headed “The
Proletariat and the War” and signed by L. Martov and four other Organising
Committee secretaries.